Chattisgarh High Court
Chitranjan And Another vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 2 January, 2025
1
2025:CGHC:250
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
CRA No. 557 of 2011
1 - Chitranjan Son of Rajkumar Choudhari, Aged about 40 years,
2 - Khemraj Son of Kantalal Choudhari, aged abount 38 years,
Both R/o village Limgaon, P.S. Saraipali, District Mahasamund (C.G.)
... Appellant(s)
versus
1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through : The Police Station, Saraipali, District Mahasamund (C.G.)
... Respondent(s)
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Raghvendra Pradhan, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Sharad Mishra, Panel Lawyer ({Hon'ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh Rajput}) Judgment on Board 02/01/2025
1. This appeal has been filed by the appellant being aggrieved by the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence dated 27.06.2011 passed by the Special Judge SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocity) District Mahasamund C.G. in Special Session Case No.09/2010 by which the trial Court has held the appellant guilty of commission of offence and sentenced them as described below:-
Sn. Conviction Sentence
1. Under Section 294 of Indian Penal Fine of Rs.500/- in default of payment of Code fine 15 days of Simple Imprisonment for both appellants.
2
2. Under Section 323 of Indian Penal Fine of Rs.1000/- in default of payment of Code fine two months of simple imprisonment for bot the appellants.
2. The case of the prosecution in nutshell is that complainant, namely, Complainant Ratiram Bariha resident of village Lingaon lodged a report in Police Station Saraipali on 12-07-2010 at 16:20. He lives in village Limgaon and works as a laborer. About a month ago, Dhanmati died by eating some poisonous substance after getting information about the illicit relationship of his daughter-in-law Bananti with Manmohan Agharia of the village. His son Jagdish and grandson Sharda both killed Manmohan Chauwari due to the same enmity. Ratiram was not in the village at the time of the incident, he got the information through someone else. After this incident, Manmohan's elder brother Chitranjan Chaudhary and Khemraj Chaudhary of his village had enmity with him. On 10-07-2010, Saturday, he was returning home from the market, near the bridge of village Chhindpali, he met Chitranjan Chaudhary and Khemraj Chaudhary of his village. Both of them had lathi in their hands and they stopped him from going ahead and abused him and both of them beat him with lathi due to which he fell on the ground. Despite knowing that he was a tribal, they insulted him by using caste words and went to the village on their motorcycle. After their departure, he somehow managed himself to reach home and told his wife Chandanbai about the incident, who called the village Kotwar Puran, whom he told about the incident and the report was lodged. On the basis of the above report First Information Report (Exhibit P-03) was lodged against the accused bearing Crime No.263/2010 under Sections 341, 294, 323/34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3(1)(10) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short 'Act of 1989') by Saraipali Police Station and investigation was started. The spot map of the incident was prepared (Exhibit P-03). The temporary caste certificate (Exhibit P-01) was seized vide 3 seizure (Exhibit P-02). The medical examination was conducted vide Exhibit P-04. Statements of witnesses were recorded. The appellants were arrested on 21-09- 2010. After completion of other investigation proceedings, on 27-10-2010, on the instructions of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mahasamund, charge sheet was presented against the accused in the Court of Judicial Magistrate Class-I, Mahasamund, under Sections 341, 294, 323/34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3 (1) (10) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. It was found that the case is triable by the Special Court (Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. The accused did not admit their Crime and claimed to be tried.
3. The prosecution has examined as many as 06 witnesses in its support. By the impugned judgment, the appellants were convicted for the offences as stated above.
4. Learned counsel for appellants submits that though the appellants have been convicted with fine only, however, the prosecution was unable to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt. He submits that the alleged incident said to have been committed on 10.07.2010 and report was lodged on 12.07.2010. No recovery of weapon was made at the instance of the appellants. The appellants have been acquitted from the charges of Act of 1989, therefore, the case of prosecution become doubtful. The injury may be caused by falling on the surface and no other witnesses is examined barring the complainant, therefore, the conviction is bad in law and required to be set aside.
5. Learned counsel for the State supported that judgment and submits that the delay in lodging the F.I.R. has been explained by the complainant. Only complainant was present and no other witnesses was present, therefore, his uncontroverted statement cannot be disbelieved in absence of any corroboration. Doctor has opined certain injuries and complainant has categorically stated the manner in which the assault was made and obscene song stated by the appellant. Therefore the appeal sans merit 4 and liable to be dismissed.
6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and peruse the documents available on record.
7. First contention of Mr. Pradhan is that there is a delay in lodging the FIR and on perusal of the impugned judgment and documents it appears that the satisfactory explanation was offered by the complainant for causing the delay.
8. His Second contention is that no other witnesses has been examined from the statement of the complainant, he vividly described the incident, the manner, the assault was made by the appellants and obscene songs which have been stated and also stated the actual wordings of the filthy language.
9. In view of this Court, the trial Court on due appreciation of evidence has rightly came to the conclusion that the appellants are guilty for the aforesaid offences and this Court does not find any reason to disbelieve the statement of the complainant.
10. Accordingly, the appeal fails and is hereby dismissed.
CC as per rules.
Sd/-
({Sachin Singh Rajput}) JUDGE Saxena